Law Prof Mark L. Movsesian of the St. John's University School of Law Center for Law and Religion besides showing how silly her supposed point is says at this end of his piece American Freedom and Catholic Power :

Here is a different uncomfortable reality that columns like this should compel us to face. The long history of American hatred of Catholics is alive, and well, and flourishing. It is kept in fine and proud form by people like this, and given space to breathe in all kinds of prominent venues. It will intensify in the months and years ahead. Dark times are coming.

Michael Potemra in this post at National ReviewSonia Sotomayor and Anti-Catholicism spends some time noting just from a legal procedure and reality standpoint how much Stiehm is out to lunch.

He also states :In recent years, the term “anti-Catholic” has been getting too much like “racist” and “sexist” for my taste: a bludgeon with which to bully people who disagree on some issue. If you fling that accusation against somebody, you’re basically saying the reason he disagrees with you is that he’s a bigot. Our public life has lost a great deal because of the promiscuous use of these words. But in this case, use of such language is appropriate: That article over at U.S. News is, simply, anti-Catholic.

I would have a hard time not finding hate, dislike or malice in Stiehm’s essay.
Rather than taking issue with one justice’s opinion, or attempting to dissect the legal thinking behind it, Stiehm takes the bigot’s way out: it’s because she’s Catholic, dammit, and you know how those Catholics are.
I find Jamie Stiehm’s essay objectionable and offensive—as a Catholic, but also as a journalist. It comes perilously close to hate speech, and betrays an attitude toward Catholicism that harkens back to the crude cartoons of Thomas Nast and the anti-Catholic nativism of the 19th century.
Stiehm should be ashamed. So should U.S. News & World Report.